Skip to main content

tv   Newsmakers  CSPAN  October 21, 2012 6:00pm-8:00pm EDT

6:00 pm
here we are before the election. what are the odds that you think you will find a way out of this mess? as opposed to going over the cliff? >> there are decent odds. we will avoid a part of the fiscal cliff. and let me explain. >> decent odds on part of the cliff? [laughter] >> yes. with respect to the sequester part, the automatic, across-the- board cuts that take place on defense and non-defense, i think there's a good chance we could come up with some alternative savings for some period of time. three months, six months. there's a reasonable chance we can do that. when it comes to the tax issue, i think it is a potentially different story. we have been quick. and president obama has been clear. we want it to extend middle- class tax relief, months ago. republicans have taken the position that unless you extend a bonus tax break for wealthier individuals, then nobody gets a
6:01 pm
tax cut extension. and if republicans and here to that position, it is very likely they would then be taking us over the cliff. the keys to the car are now in their hands on this particular issue. >> you might be able to put off the spending cuts and then fight about the taxes? >> i am not sure yet. i think there's broad agreement that the across-the-board sequester cuts are bad for the country. democrats to not like the cut to the fence and non-defense. we are together on the fact that would be bad for the country, but for the economy. i hope we could proceed on that track. we would love to be able to address the tax issue. but again, you have 98% of the house republicans signed the grover norquist pledged that does not one additional penny of revenue from wealthy people for the purpose of reducing the
6:02 pm
deficit. we believe you ought to take a balanced approach. the approach bipartisan groups have recommended. that would be the question. in the lame-duck session, will you have enough republicans going to ask the very wealthiest to contribute more to paying down the debt? >> congressman, we are in a similar situation as we were in 2010 as far as the bush tax rate. at that point you were a key player. going back to that time, eventually the rates were extended. there came a point where the clearly decided -- to do with the public. house democrats were not part of that deal. house democrats were not pleased with that deal. what happened back then? should obama win, are you confident that will not happen again? >> many of us were upset with this cut at the time.
6:03 pm
we thought it was a sweetheart deal for the wealthiest in the country. the president agreed was a bad idea, but he felt forced to except that. the president has been clear that if we want to be serious about reducing the deficit, we have got to ask very wealthy people to contribute. he has been very clear that he would veto any deal that came to his desk of extended the tax cuts for the wealthy people. >> to talk about the grover norquist pledge. some republicans have been quoted saying if president obama wins, taxes are going to go up. those are coming from some house republicans including tom paul. they estimate will take the
6:04 pm
house, that means republicans going along with that. do you think and obama when would be a mandate to raise taxes on the wealthy, do you think there would be enough republicans but would break away should obama win? what i think a central issue in this campaign has been whether we should ask the very wealthy to contribute more to reducing the deficit. the president has been clear on that pier he says we need to do that. it means used hit seniors on medicare carter. that is why he says we need a
6:05 pm
contribution from the wealthy. i think that you will find some people like tom cole who i think is a reasonable and pragmatic guy who will say we are going to have a deal with this situation. however, i think you are still going to have a whole lot of house republicans that refuse to budge. what has changed is the structure situation. as you go into january 1, if republicans did not budge from it will mean that taxes go up on everybody. and i think it is just an untenable position, policy wise and politically for republican house members to be saying country, listen, we are not giving in other tax break, because we are holding out to give tax breaks to the very wealthy. the president will be campaigning hard on this issue after election. and some democrats will not be a majority in the house. under the scenario you painted from i think there's a different end to this movie this time around than there was two years ago. >> the president made a strong point about doing it by raising the marginal income tax in the top two brackets. do you see any way to do this through another door. or this or have to be a top rate?
6:06 pm
>> i think we should allow the top rate to return to where they were during the clinton administration when the economy was doing just great. and last time that we balance our budget. once you go there, you can point out that the sums involved commission, they assume as their starting point of that additional revenue from allowing the tax rate on the top incomers to go into effect, they assume that. my view would be, let the rates go up. we are happy to of a conversation about tax reform. and the things we should do, simplify the tax code. but we should not arbitrarily fixed the rate reduction. 20% across the board would cost five trillion dollars and then said, we are going to try to find a way to pay for this. >> was after the election, the president wins, congress is
6:07 pm
controlled, and there's a negotiation did it turns out that raising the top rate is difficult, but some limiting exemptions and credits to get the money from the top income groups is more possible. is that a possible place to explore? >> yes. i think the starting point for the rates as apart as a negotiation of what it would be, and then if republicans want to propose what they want to get rid of and they come public with it, which they have refused to do so far. so are the only thing have said is what they will keep off the table capital gains, we will not touch that. and folks like mitt romney cannot touch not. everything else is on the table. once the rates return, we should have a conversation about tax reform. the other thing we should look
6:08 pm
at, and i am speaking personally is -- pacs. i do not think anyone thinks we should permanently extend the payroll tax cut. but given the situation we are and i do not think that should be taken off of the table. >> we are talking about payroll tax holidays at the end of the year that expire. if you look at the reports -- they say that is a much bigger impact on the economy than allowing the top rates to go up. as much more important because it means more money in the pockets of working americans to go out and spend that money rather than just sticking it in the state deposit box. i think that, again, i think that has got to be part of the mix. >> critics say that is taking money out of social security. they came out again and said that. they do think it should be off the table. you think based on the economy it is not time to take that money out. >> it needs to be part of the equation. the actuary for social security has stated very clearly that
6:09 pm
this does not take one penny out of the social security trust fund. those funds are back filled, dollar for dollar from the general fund. that has been true of the last two years. to be true in any extension we have. i am just saying should be part of the conversation. and as some people would like to take off of the table. speaking personally, i think it should be part of the debate. >> can we talk about spending? i think medicare would be any part of any deficit reduction conversation. proposale president's are limited to squeezing healthcare -- do you think democrats are willing to think about big changes to medicare as part of one of these situations? >> let me be clear. we have not said we should just do across the board, sort of cuts. what we have said is we should
6:10 pm
change the way we reimburse providers so that we reward them based on the quality of care they provide things like accountable care organizations. so, the idea is to improve the coordination of care and bring down costs and whether it is not hurting patients, it can help a patient. it seems to me we should continue to look at those kinds of ideas before we try to transfer rising health-care costs on to the backs of seniors. >> i was not talking about this. but about raising the premium for upper income people. or changing the copays. things are going to run on the table -- >> before we even start talking about those kinds of things, what does have a conversation about taking a balanced approach to the deficit. and republicans have absolutely refused to talk about asking very wealthy people to contribute more to the deficit.
6:11 pm
want to go straight to hitting the seniors on medicare. and so, my view is that is not a conversation we will have. the other point i would make, as you know, medicare right now is already -- higher income seniors already to pay more in terms of premiums. there are limits to what you can do their. >> if republicans put talks on the table, you are not ruling out the possibility of going beyond? >> i then we need to look at all of these things. i think that is fun of the last place you would go. there are lots of other places in the first place. >> can you tell us how that process was?
6:12 pm
did you do any p90x workouts before? what was the process like? to think you help to the vice president get ready? >> the vice-president is in pretty good shape, too. [laughter] >> you are right. i get along with paul ryan. we are very far apart on the policies. the reason i asked me to take on that role was because, as a senior democrat on the committee, i sit next to paul ryan. we can finish each other's sentences. i hope i was hopeful to be vice- president. what i can say is that there was really nothing you heard during the debate that he hadn't heard during the previous four days and the block. i think that was helpful. >> the vice president knows these issues.
6:13 pm
i was able to bring to the table the manner in which paul ryan -- but in terms of the line and the way the message is delivered, i think we prepared him, i think he was prepared. >> did you laugh and smile as much as he did in the debate? >> joe biden is passionate about these issues. especially when it comes to fighting for the middle class. and that came through in the debate clearly. >> did paul ryan seem like the same person you have been sitting next to during the debate? did he change for the debate? >> i do not think he changed. i think one thing that has been a little different starting with the republican convention is that i get the impression, i did not know if this is the case, that there are some things that paul ryan is saying that he might not have said before. his speech, as you know was a heyday for the fact checkers. his convention speech. the next day. i will leave it at that. >> if president obama is
6:14 pm
reelected, paul ryan welcome back to the house. in a somewhat different position than the left. more prominent. in some respects, one of the possible candidates for 2016. do you think that will have an influence on the budget talks? >> i am assuming it will have some impact. it is hard to know exactly what impact. what we have seen so far in terms of the ryan but it is that is an uncompromising plan. the of us to many different ways if there would except one penny of additional money. romney said he wouldn't take $10 of cuts to $1 of revenue. so it is really hard to see how you move forward with such an uncompromising approach. the one thing that has changed is that it is -- the tax situation at the end of the year. because if you allow all of the tax rates to revert to the levels, which i am not for, very few people are, that is $5 trillion over 10 years. simms and bowls cost for about $2 trillion as part of deficit- reduction.
6:15 pm
seems to me there are things that we can work with. again, i am not expecting any conversions. but i am saying is the structure situation has changed. >> do you think he is more likely to be with speaker boehner are? or would it be with cantor? >> i do not know the answer. all i know is that to date, the ryan budget approach has been a totally uncompromising approach. and to that extent, it is been very different then were the speaker appears to be willing to go and discuss. and i do not know if we expect any common kenneth after election conversions.
6:16 pm
>> if i can ask about the gang of eight. what are the odds of that coming up as some kind of compromise? >> i want to salute them for their efforts. they have been working hard to come together on these issues. and there are some indications that the republican and democratic leaders in the senate -- at least have got one who is engaged in the process. after the election, you are obviously going to see a lot greater involvement from the president. in terms of a post-election. as well as from the house and senate leadership in both parties. if they have got some ideas that have been ready made, i think people would be interested in looking at them, but i think the conversation will quickly
6:17 pm
move to the leadership level. >> the democratic leaders and the republican leaders in the senate have someone in gang of 8? >> i think they have expressed an interest. they are participating. in some sense, not as the spokespersons for the leadership. but with the blessing of the leadership. that being said, i think that they have done a good job and try to work through some of the issues. but i think once the election is over, you will see the house, senate leadership and the white house really engage quickly. on these issues. >> spoke with nancy pelosi heading be dccc. speculationt of that she will not be serving the entire congress. there's concern within some
6:18 pm
role, especially on the fund- raising part. do you have any idea whether she is going to be continuing on and being the top democrat in the next congress? and do you think that there would be a major voice -- whenever she decides? >> i do not know what your plans are. i think she is served the democrats predict the house very well. i thought she served the country very well. i think she serves our caucus very well as a democrat leader. i do not know exactly what decisions she will make. >> what about your decision? >> you are on budget now. >> i do like the budget. unfortunately, because even in that position i am a member of the leadership. i participated in all the leadership meetings. and look, you never know what a
6:19 pm
post-election period will bring with it. obviously, you want to look at all of your options. but i should be clear. i think that serving as the senior democrat of the budget committee has been an honor that my colleagues gave me and provided me an opportunity to be in the middle of a lot of huge discussions. we will continue that way i hoped. >> would be willing to leave the house and take an administration position if there is a second obama term? >> i am focused on the election right now. >> ok. >> i am very pleased with the opportunity that i currently have, but again, until election day what us see what the outcome is. >> we were talking as if president obama was born to be reelected. that is a possibility. but not the only possibility. what is the scenario if mitt romney wins and have a lame- duck congress in a lame-duck
6:20 pm
president? >> i will tell you what i think that is a lot harder for the country. in terms of a bipartisan agreement. and it is because every bipartisan group has said that a reasonable deficit reduction plan involves additional cuts and reforms, but also has to include revenue. mitt romney and paul ryan have said, absolutely no, not going to ask for one more penny come even from the wealthiest americans to of reduce the deficit. it is hard to get there if you do not have additional revenues. means you whack everybody. >> is the day after the election. if mitt romney is the president on the left, what you do with the lame duck? >> my understanding from the statements of the romney campaign is that they would ask
6:21 pm
for essentially one year in which to work out those issues. i assume, we know that means they want to extend the tax rates for everybody, including folks at the top. i am assuming they do not want to extend payroll tax for working americans. paul ryan voted against extended the payroll tax cuts even last january, even though that would be bigger boost to the economy, then another romney tax break for the very wealthy. and when it comes to sequester, as far as i can tell, they are talking about kicking matted down the road. >> what would you and the democrats do? >> it would continue to push for a balanced approach to reducing our deficit and focusing as well on trying to accelerate the recovery.
6:22 pm
we have that goal. we have to come up with a credible plan that we put in place right away to reduce the long-term deficit. we need to make sure we boost the very fragile economy. the president has not posted the jobs bill -- it has been sitting there for more than a year now. whatever they come up with, they have to put that dual goal of boosting a fragile, and recovery, a flat file economy. and making it clear that we are serious about long-term deficit reduction plan. for ticket balanced approach, we can do that. >> if you have as four years of experience of the democratic
6:23 pm
campaign committee, a lot of leaders are predicting on the democratic side that they are going to pick up the net 25 seats. you talk to steve israel? you know this so well. >> steve is doing a great job. i did it for two terms. he is doing a great job. we will pick up seats. we have been gaining momentum. and the magic number is 25 seats. and look, we are in striking distance. i did not think anyone is making any particular prediction other than to say that the focus on the republican budget, the romney-ryan plan for the country has helped a lot of our candidates. and a lot of these seats, you
6:24 pm
have a republican congress who voted for a budget that turns a medicare into a voucher plan. that has a tax plan that independent groups have said would raise taxes on middle income taxpayers to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. i think a lot of these are in play. part of it will depend on not only the president winning, but winning by a decent margin, obviously by today's standards that is 1.5%, a 2%. >> with keeping the key states are? california has been mentioned. and the home state of the new york. where are these going to have to be? >> i think new york is very important. florida. there are a lot of seats in florida. you mentioned california. some are not president of battleground states. and then you of some of the battleground states. florida being one. we have some in ohio.
6:25 pm
and some southwest race is. colorado. a number of important races there as well. again, i think that the good news for democrats is that momentum is building. refining and lot of republicans in congress who are always pretended to be moderates. all of a sudden these hardcore party members of congress are running ads like -- we really want to enter into a bipartisan agreement. we will see. i think the voters will hold them accountable, voting for a very extreme budget plans. >> congressman, chris van hollen, thank you. >> we are back with our two reporters. and the puzzle cliff, what is it? are we going off of it?
6:26 pm
what's the fiscal cliff are the spending cuts and tax increases that will take effect at the end of the year unless congress and the president finds another way to reduce the deficit. about congressman chris van hollen made an interesting point where neither democrats or republicans want the spending cuts. he suggested they might find a way to substitute some other spending cuts and get rid of that while continuing to run the argument over whether to extend the tax cuts for the rich. >> and what to expect a ban on tax rates, tax reform, bush era tax cuts? >> "it is the great unknown. i think that mitt romney wins, he is going to have the momentum that will push it into 2013. and they do that anyway, even if obama wins.
6:27 pm
but this election, both sides agree. whoever wins is going to be able to say, i have the mandate. this is a central issue, we have to do my plan. if it is obama, that will put republicans in the house and a very difficult place. will split the conference. there will be quite an uproar. >> what about the tax cut holiday? people have benefited from not for the last two years. it could expire at the end of this year. >> i thought it was very newsworthy that chris van hollen was trying to revive that or least keep it on the table. everyone thought it is dead, it is not going to be extended. >> the back story on that though is that republicans did not want to do it again last time. there were pushed into a corner on it. they did do it again. are republicans like to say, if the economy is what it is right now, they really should say no. >> the key is that when it was set to expire, the obama
6:28 pm
administration was also treating it as something that was going to expire. in the back of their minds -- the economy would be better by 2012. here we are in the unemployment rate is down a little bit. 7.8%. but ben bernanke is turning the spigot for more and more credit. i think what chris van hollen is saying is -- >> and that means for speaker boehner? >> is a top spot. we have seen how much the payroll tax will apply. regardless of what happens,
6:29 pm
speaker boehner or will be in a top spot. especially if obama does win. some republicans say we should always have tax increases. others like tom cole say if obama wins -- it is going to be a problem for speaker boehner. remember, banner and the president seemed so close to having a grand bargain. a lot of those ideas will go back on the table. including raising the eligibility age. >> do in the talks but kicked back up between the speaker and the president? >> yes. whether there is a deal or not, it is going to be a harry reid, john boehner, president obama conversation. barring the outcome of the election. but it will have to cut some deals. because the rest of them will be so divided there will not be able to do anything. speaker boehner are is going to have to except the split.
6:30 pm
there is no way he can get them all to vote for a deal. >> mitch mcconnell could be in the middle. >> what is governor romney wins the presidency than a? >> i think if he wins, they do call the whole thing off. it is very hard to argue that he does not deserve the right to have his own budget. you will do that and the first few months of 2013. it is hard to imagine a bunch of democrats and president obama falling on their swords for something of the new president could just reverse. >> speaking of budgets -- what is this book? >> inside the high-stakes politics of the federal budget. a book that people who note that the budget and the deficit are important but have never managed to read on this subject.
6:31 pm
>> thank you. >> tomorrow on "washington journal and" we will preview the final debate on foreign policy with jonathan tepperman. then we will hold a roundtable discussion on competitive the u.s. house and senate races from across the country. our guests are jennifer duffy and david wasserman. washington journal bang at" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> with the focus on presidential debates, c-span is asking local high-school students to send a message to the president. in a short video, students will
6:32 pm
answer the question, what is the most important issue for the president to consider in 2013. in videostudent cam competition is open to students grades 6-12. when george mcgovern, a former south dakota representative and senator and 1962 presidential candidate died. here is experts -- excerpts of him discussing his presidential candidacies and what it was like running against president nixon. >> in 1968, were you surprised when johnson decided not to run for reelection? >> i was. johnson was one politician who
6:33 pm
was determined to stay in high office all of his days. i think that was his plan. >> he saw that war turned sour. he was booed all over the country, by young people. he was sick to his hear that the liberal part of the democratic party turned against them because of the war in vietnam. here is janet mccarthy, a progressive young senator from minnesota running against him for the presidential nomination. mccarthy had not been heavily
6:34 pm
involved in the anit-war movement. he announced formally he would run for president. johnson saw him began to gather strength and force. he was threatening to win the wisconsin primary. i think he just cannot stand it. my god, what have i done? i have this whole country with me in 1964. i won that election in a landslide. he gave goldwater a shellacking that like richard nixon did me in 1972. the whole country swung against them. that is what led him to not running for reelection. >> had you considered running against johnson? >> i had considered.
6:35 pm
the anti-war people were after me running against him. i was perhaps the most outspoken critic of the war. i was somewhat of a folk hero on university campuses. they were asking me to run. i did not see how i could do that because i was up for reelection to the senate. i won the first race in 1962 in a recount. i barely nosed out my opponent. and now i am up for reelection. i just thought, i cannot give that up. i cannot sacrifice my position in the senate for what is an uphill race. i did not have any money. i was not a wealthy man.
6:36 pm
i did not have any big financial backers. i told this crowd that was after me, why do you not get a hold of the senator that is against the war, but it is not up for reelection. if he loses the presidential election, at least he will stay on in the senate. i suggested senator metcalf of montana and senator mccarthy of minnesota. neither one of whom had to face3 election last year. he went to metcalf first. he practically threw them part of his office. i will not run against a democratic president for the nomination. i have no interest in being president of the united states.
6:37 pm
i am enjoying being a united states senator. they went to mccarthy. to my surprise he said, i just might do that. he came over onto the senate floor. he said your guys came over to see me. i think i just might do that. i did not expect that. i did not expect him to do as well as he did. i told that robert kennedy, do you realize that mccarthy will run for president? he has finished his term. that is what he says. bobby had been urged to run against johnson and had turned it down. he probably thought it was hopeless. when he realized jane was going
6:38 pm
to do it, he began to realize, i should get into this thing. we had two senators campaigning for the nomination in addition to johnson, it was at that point after bobby got into the race that johnson announced that he would not run for reelection. i kind of felt sorry for johnson. i detested the war in iraq, but i thought that johnson had done a great job on domestic issues. he got through two landmark civil rights proposals, the public accommodations act and the boting rights act of 1964-
6:39 pm
65. no other politician could have gotten those bills through congress. he practically twisted off the arms of southern senators to get the support out of them said that they could pass that bill. when he signed it into law, he turned to some of us who have been supportive of the law, he said, folks, there goes tht e south for the next 100 years. he was right. the solid south for the democrats became the solid south for the republicans. >> he said that during the signing ceremony? >> yeah, gentlemen, there goes the south. i had forgotten whether he set the next 50 years or the next 100. johnson knew the south better
6:40 pm
than any of us and what it took to run for office there. when i saw him resigning from running for reelection, the guy that ran earlier, i knew his heart was not as much in that war as earlier. the tapes came out and we knew his heart was not in it. i felt sorry for him. he had done ellora of good for the country. the great society program was a wonderful program. it was ridiculed by the republicans, but it was a wonderful program. the neighborhood youth, the
6:41 pm
domestic peace corps. putting young people to work building up our forests and parks. he did a lot for education. he did a lot for housing. he did a lot for working people. and of course the great landmark civil rights case, johnson deserved a second term. he blew it away with his disaster in vietnam. >> did you campaign for hubert humphrey? >> i did. nominated in 1968, i was the first person to get up and hold up his hands and say that i was for him. i never had any trouble doing that.
6:42 pm
while hubert supported the war in vietnam, he had a great record on everything else. he was running against richard nixon. i did not have any big beef against nixon either. i felt that he and hubert had about the same position on the war in vietnam, but hubert have led the fight for civil rights for years and the peace corps and food for teens, housing for low income people. he was a genuine liberal on everything accept vietnam. i had no trouble campaigning for him given the alternative of president nixon. >> did he let on to you that his
6:43 pm
heart was not totally into vietnam? >> what he said to me, he was my next-door neighbor in washington. i lived next door to him for 12 years. he told me, george, i know how you feel about vietnam. i know that some of the national press corps are going to try to invent stories that secretly, i am against johnson's policies in vietnam. south i want you to know that i am 100% behind our policy in vietnam. there is no difference between president johnson and me and i want you to know that as a friend. i believe that was his view. >> joe told us that humphrey
6:44 pm
was not lbj's choice. did you get the sense that lbj was not totally behind humphrey? >> that surprises me because humphrey was faithful to johnson. he was when johnson was majority leader of the senate. i remember some of the other people talked about by johnson. dodd of connecticut, not the current dodd, but his father. he was on the list. there were some otheres s. i don't know on what basis you could say that johnson was not for humphrey for vice-president. he had the freedom to do so. i was puzzled that one of
6:45 pm
president johnson's top aides would say that johnson was not for hubert. >> i want to talk about the domestic side of the nixon's first turn. white role did you what play that extended some of the great policy during richard nixon's presidency? >> nixon was very strong in certain areas. that was on the national nutritional situation. he always understood the purposes of food stamps and the ogram. lunch pr when bob dole and i would send
6:46 pm
down and those bipartisan measures, president nixon would sign those without batting an eye. he would convene a national conference on food and nutrition. it was very well attended. it had a big impact on national policy. it had a big impact in the house and senate. in that area, i could areafault nixon at all. he was aware of the importance of those programs and did nothing to restrict them at all. later on, reagan did. he cut the food stamp program. he did various things. in those areas that i was especially interested, president nixon was pretty good. i thought that he was good on agricultural policy. not 100%, but reasonably good.
6:47 pm
i thought that he was pretty good on civil-rights. later on, when he opened the door to china, i thought that was a major move that no democratic president could have the wit or imagination to do. i thought in a number of areas, nixon was pretty good, especially on domestic policy. >> were you were involved in k shaping up as policy towards native americans? >> i hope so. i tried to do what i could to help the native americans, especially in my own state. i guess i am a little fuzzy as to just what nixon did in that
6:48 pm
area. i do not know if she was particularly interested in indian affairs. >> he ended the policy of termination of tribes and gave bootleg back to the native americans. >> those are worthwhile measures. how are we doing on time? >> we will move ahead to 1972. how did you defeat edmund? >> i outworked him. i was back and forth across this country c ceasing for 2 years. i announced, not in january of 1972, up to that time, that had been the acceptable time to
6:49 pm
announce. coming from a little states like south dakota with three electoral votes, i had to out work ed for that nomination. i announced in early 1971. it was regarded as a freakish thing to do and the press paid no attention to me for the first eight or nine months. in the past, candidates had always announced in the election year. it allowed me to organize grass- roots organizations across this country. to do it very quietly. i remember working in the state of california long before any other presidential candidates had even visited california. i must have had 1000 coffee parties in different living
6:50 pm
rooms across the country in the state of california before anybody else. people began to thank the -- think that i made sense. the crowds grew larger. it became easier to get people to come out to a reception or a cocktail party or whatever it was. i think i built quietly a grass roots organization that was superior to anything about ed or hubert humphrey had. there were 16 candidates in that race. then i began to work the campuses very hard. i recruited young people and gave them jobs to do. look for highly
6:51 pm
talented people to put into top campaign spots, guys like gary hart, and on no lawyer. a humorist, witty guy that had been with the kennedy operations for years that became my political director. we began to work on potential delegates before anybody else. i think by the end of 1971, i had a much better organization across the country than any of the other candidates. that was a major way in which i won the nomination. i was very clear on the transcendent issue of the day, the war in iraq -- the vietnam.
6:52 pm
that was the cutting edge of the campaign. i just called for our disengagement, flat out. i said that we will have all of our troops out of their within 60 days when i become president. no other candidate was otherbold. that is what got to the housewives and college students and workers and business people. even wall street began to listen. by being blunt and direct and decisive on that issue, i picked up the anti-war vote almost in its entirety. that was not risk-free, because there were a lot of people that
6:53 pm
were for the war in vietnam. if you want to make a bid for the presidency that the country is committed to, there is some risk. it cost me some political damage. >> it was not enough to be an end-war can get it. you needed more for the coalition? >> i had a strong position on education. i had a strong position on the environment. i had a strong position on tax reform, welfare reform. i had good, bold positions on a whole range of issues. i think that vietnam was the issue that was cutting th4e ice during the bid for the nomination. >> was nixon considered
6:54 pm
vulnerable? >> we thought he was vulnerable. he turned out to be a lot less vulnerable than i thought. i always have the feeling that nixon was not loved by the american people the way that jack kennedy was or some of the other political figures of our time. i thought he was vulnerable. in retrospect, you have to remember that the economy was doing well, he was cutting the number of troops in vietnam, reducing them almost every month. he opened the door to china, which impressed a lot of people. even a lot of liberals. he was tougher than we thought. i did think if i could win that nomination that most of the
6:55 pm
battle for the white house was over. i think that was ed's view. the big battle is to get the nomination. >> was it believes that the liberal candidate could win the center in the united states? >> they used to. president roosevelt won four terms as president. jack won the center, not by a big margin, but enough to get to the white house. johnson carried the center. for various reasons. one was that liberals were constantly assailed by the right wing in american politics. we were painted as some kind of
6:56 pm
extreme ideologues who were way out of touch with the american people. that theme was banged away on by the right wing to the point where it made it difficult for liberals to carry moderate votes, what might be called the center. >> did you get a whiff of dirty tricks? >> we saw certain things. we had a big rally scheduled in los angeles one sunday to try to reach concentrated black audiences. we worked on all of the black churches in central los angeles. we did it very well.
6:57 pm
we had hand bills given to everybody going to church that morning. we had picnics organized after the church hours that people were invited to attend. we worked it systematically. i expected to have 25,000-35,000 people coming out after church to attend these things. i would go and speak to three or four different groups. during the night on saturday night, early evening, a battery of phone calls up was made to all of the churches saying that the rally is had been cancelled and that george mcgovern would not be able to appear until further notice there would be no such rallies. that was all done by people
6:58 pm
sabotaging our campaign. and nobody showed up. i turned out at the rallies and there was almost no one there. we had a number of things like that happened. i will not say it cost us the election. they were worries some and harmful. i did not see the main unfolding of the whole watergate scenario. >> you did see evidence that somebody tried to break into your headquarters. >> yes, we knew about that. i was disappointed the way that story was received. it appeared in "the washington post." it was just a little story, one
6:59 pm
column. it said that during the night, political workers had broken into democratic headquarters. they had been apprehended and were being held. at that time, mike was the majority leader of the senate. he had a habit about five minutes before the senate would go into session, he would stand down in the well of the house and senate and field a few questions from reporters. they said, mr. president, did you read the story in the "the washington post." burglars broke into democratic headquarters. what do you think is the significance? >> he said that i saw the story,
7:00 pm
but that kind of nonsense goes on in any campaign. i was really flabbergasted. i thought it was serious. i thought that the majority leader of the democrats, to dismiss this it with no conseque was a mistake. >> there was also an attempt to break into your headquarters. >> the came to my headquarters a couple of nights earlier. i was not aware of that until some time later, but even to this day i had to depend on what the nixon people said to get this story. not meaning the male name, the meeting will powered.
7:01 pm
he talks about how he he went out behind my headquarters and hid in an alley and shot out the lights around headquarters. and but what happened is the peak mcgovern people worked all night. there was still people in their working up until 4:30 in the morning. finally after sitting in the trees and shrubbery all night, without any chance to break into headquarters, finally decided the mcgovern people are hopeless and gave up on it. it was a couple of nights later they decided to hit the democratic national headquarters rather than my headquarters. >> do try to make an issue out of the democratic -- the water
7:02 pm
great -- water gate bridge get in the campaign, but it did not take. >> i tried my best. i would describe the burglars with rubber gloves on and burglar kids stealing into our headquarters in the dead of night. some of them carrying passes through the white house. i said how can we ignore this? this had to be something either the white house or president was tied in with. how could seven men go in and undertake something like this, two of them carrying white house and repasses and the president not know anything about it? i kept calling on the press. calling on the congress to dig into it. we could not get anyone except for the reporters for the
7:03 pm
washington post woodward and bernstein. since it was held only one paper and one generally regarded as liberal and sensitive to democrats. >> did you have a sense that the knight newspapers were receiving information from the nixon campaign about his bouts with mental illness? >> i did not have that feeling. i knew that night newspaper were the ones that have the story. i never attributed them getting the story from the white house or from the nixon campaign.
7:04 pm
i think there -- they got their story from the young man at the barnes hospital in st. louis. that is a great hospital. that is where tom eagleton was treated for years. apparently a son of one of the doctors of the doctor who was thoroughly conversant with his mental difficulties leak of that story to the press. it was also leaked at time magazine, but i never interbedded that to the nation campaign. >> of the nixon campaign or redo my talk about your world war two camp -- -- world war ii career because that would hurt
7:05 pm
you. >> i always felt awkward. and talking about what a great hero i am. it is not the kind of thing that comes easily to me, but i think we should have talked about it more than we did, especially since i was viewed in the public mind as an anti-war person, maybe a pacifist, maybe like the radical kids on the campuses. i should have said one of the reasons i am speaking out against the war in vietnam is that i know firsthand what war does. it is a terribly destructive and cruel and beiber enterprise -- barbaric enterprise. i am proud i participated because i thought that was a war in which we have no
7:06 pm
honorable alternative. hitler was gobbling up one country after another across europe, and even the security of the united states kong and the balance. but the fact that i watched half of my fellow bomber pilots go down in flames in world war ii makes me cautious about submitting young americans to wars that are not necessary. ii we had nold war alternative. vietnam war they did not want war with us. that is why i speak out against it, not because i am a pacifist, not because i am unwilling to defend this country.
7:07 pm
there is not a time i would not have given my life gladly if it were in the genuine defense of the united states. i love this country and it was worth defending and i defended it as a young man, so i do not want anybody questioning my loyalty or willingness to defend america. on the other hand, i do not want powerful men in washington committing my son or your son to will war that is unnecessary. i think that would of carried more weight if i had done that. and i sincerely wish i had done it now. interview daniel tells birds. he told me he came to you and tried to involve you in speaking
7:08 pm
out about the word using the pentagon papers. >> that was against the law. you cannot leak classified government documents to the press. i was not about to do that. i was against the war, but i was not going to leak classified government documents and possibly end up going to prison. i told the and i thought he was the one -- he had been one of the architects of the vietnam war, and i said you have materials that will refuse that policy. i think it is up to you to make the decision, that you may owe it to the country to risk going to jail in order to repeal the project, but i said do not ask a junior senator from south dakota to do that too has been seeking out -- speaking out against the
7:09 pm
war and will continue to do so. he told me he went to see a senator, and has said he will not do that. he will not release classified documents in violation of federal statute, which turned out to be right. i like daniel elsbernd. i think he is a courageous man, and i am glad he saw fit to release those papers, because it did below the whistle on the administration, but he almost went to jail because of that. >> what do you remember of the day president nixon resigned? >> i remember that vividly. and i do not say i gloated over it, i did not.
7:10 pm
but i felt that justice was done in that case. and i felt the senate, house had approached the matter in a bipartisan way and the vote was overwhelmingly on the side of the president is stepping down. they did not actually take this step to expel him from office, but it was clear that was ahead if he did not step down. i felt that was a case where justice was served. i do not drop any particular glee over it. but i think it was the right course. >> president nixon was very afraid of edward kennedy running against him.
7:11 pm
i think at that time it was robert kennedy. i think ted kennedy seriously considered it, but i think it would've been in the summer of 1969 he came to the view that he just could not mount a successful presidential campaign after that tragedy. that it had scarred him in ways it would make it difficult for him to carry out a presidential
7:12 pm
campaign. it is hard to know what was in his mind, but when i tried to get him to run as my running mate in 1972, he declined to do that. iu is thought it was because the only kennedy brother left. jack had been killed. bobby had been killed, and so ted who had young children of his own, was the only member of the kennedy clan left of the males and did not want to risk being the third one to be shot, to be assassinated. and and just decided he could
7:13 pm
not put himself on the line and that way. that was my own view of it. >> did he say that to you? >> no. >> final question. you decided to come to president nixon and the other nixon's funeral. how did you come to that decision? >> i decided it was the proper thing to do. he had been my opponent. i thought it would be a good show of dedication to the enduring ideals of the country for me to recognize the high office he had held to recognize that campaigns cannot go on forever, there comes a time when you have to work together to a advance the country's in ways other than campaigning. so it was on that basis that i
7:14 pm
went first at pat nixon's funeral and months later to president nixon. i never had any regrets about that. >> it shows a very powerful figure can violate the law. and it shows you can violate the constitution. it showed also sometimes you get caught when you engage in behavior of that kind. you may pay a very heavy price for wrongdoing. i cannot imagine anything worse that can happen to a president than to be thrown out of office in disgrace, and i am sure president nixon came to feel that way about it. and so the lessons of watergate
7:15 pm
is to tell the truth, to obey the law. the only of the president takes is to uphold the constitution. do not ignore that oath. take it seriously. >> thank you for your time. >> some live events tomorrow on the c-span networks. the u.s. institute of peace process discussion of our religious tensions in the sometimes violent reactions to statements about religion. that is live at 10:00 eastern on c-span. also tomorrow morning, a look at china's upcoming political transition. the heritage foundation will discuss what it means for u.s./china relations. that is live at 10:30 eastern on c-span to.
7:16 pm
>> i think mr. nixon is an effective leader of this party. i hope he would grant me the same period which point of view and party to we want to leave the united states. >> mr. nixon, would you like to comment on that statement. >> in the constitution they had in mind that we would talk, we would elect officials based upon recent arguments. you cannot argue against the image, an image is just that. you have to counter with an image. and in the world with a whole lot of problems in the world, all lot of problems in the country, this argument has to dominate. it does not when it is on television. >> the history of presidential debate since 1960 with john spillane tonight at 8:00 eastern and specific -- pacific on c- span3. >> in the walter political
7:17 pm
director for abc news. welcome back. from your web site, cramming for foreign policy for the last debate, the president's camp david and mitt romney in florida of preparing for the debate that will take place tomorrow night. does it matter, does the third debate matter. those foreign policy matter when the economy seems to be driving the election. >> i think we've seen that every debate has mattered. whether it is in the primaries or the candidates who was in first is in second, coming from behind switched after every single debate. now the denver debate, the very first one was the most significant in terms of moving the momentum, but i think what we saw the president's performance at the hofstra debate and debate now about how the race has tightened. we say foreign policy is not something voters are not necessarily thing attention to
7:18 pm
what voters are looking for someone who can put together a profile on the economy, look like they have a plan for the economy, but they really want to know what will they look like when they have to make the old mccal. the consequential thing and the thing they need the least amount of work on is some of the issues on foreign-policy. they can move that through because of the power of the presidency. >> calling it the battle in bulk up. back to your story. pointing out essentially it is
7:19 pm
frozen the race in many respects. we will see an ongoing of the debate tuesday through the election. up until then a month in which it has been back on the trail. >> although as you know and as you've stated, it is not as if voters in the swing states have been given a reprieve from the campaign appeared that they are being inundated with as many ads and campaign -- as much campaign our reach as you can possibly get. whether it is folks coming to your door or asking if you voted, whether you turn on the television and are swapped with campaign advertisements or is the fact you cannot pick up your phone in some of the swing states because you know the person on the other end of the line is somehow related to the campaign. you were never scared a day off
7:20 pm
the campaign trail when you are a boater. host: charlie cook weighing in with this question. bush, gore, do not be surprised if the popular vote goes one way, the electoral votes the other way in this electoral race. chuck taught at abc news point to a scenario, 269, 269 and then it goes to the house. >> lots of questions. the political junkie in all of this say we look for the scenarios that are not likely, but possible and have been very rarely of course. in the case of the bush forces core redox. when we look at the polls today, we can see why this discussion is happening. we have national polls showing a very tight race some showing mitt romney with a big lead. some with a smaller lead or the president with a very small lead. in the battleground states we
7:21 pm
know the electoral college votes, that is where the president has shown a consistent lead in the major states that decide the election. you can see is an area where your of the popular vote winner in mitt romney and electoral vote winner in president obama. but i stress again, it is very rare. i feel like at the end of the day, what usually happens is there is momentum. however slight that pushes both the electoral a national vote one way. >> host: writing a new democrat a poll showing just how tight the race is in no high-yield. we've seen other polls, including an nbc poll that have the president of nine or 10 percentage point a couple of weeks ago in a high yield. >guest: which we all know is the key to the race. the folks on the democratic say the race is tight but still feel good about our position in ohio.
7:22 pm
republicans saying that race has tightened and the ohio senate race also tightening. feeling very good about the state, as you pointed out earlier. absentee voting has already begun. the battle over who is voting that we'll hear about all the way through election day. the question is, as the damage the president obama and his allies inflicted on mitt romney over the course of the summer, all those negative advertisements about his work ethic of bain capital, a cayman island accounts, about who met ronnie is -- mitt romney is, did that take its toll and create the character that has yet to be changed by mitt romney or was his debate performance enough to change that caricature and shatter it? that is the ohio conundrum.
7:23 pm
host: let me ask you about another state. fool's gold sometimes for republicans. pennsylvania. citing this headline. republicans with new hope in pennsylvania. the senate race has tightened significantly. one poll had the present up only four points in pennsylvania. he lost a primary in 2008 to hillary clinton. he won in the general election. >> this is why the scenario about 2000 comes back and this discussion. regardless of whether or not mitt romney is able to win pennsylvania, he certainly will do better than john mccain. that means he will get more votes than john mccain, which means he can boost up the popular vote and rack up the votes leading to a popular vote wind, winning the state and its electoral votes is much tougher. partly because the way the state
7:24 pm
is is broken down is the east and west, the east being philadelphia and its suburbs much more democratic cleaning. the west used to be hardcore yellow dog democrats. much more socially conservative. they have been leaning more republican. it is clear through mitt romney folks, whenever they saw their early on they felt like they could not overcome the structural problems they had in the state. not a dime has been spent in this state on tv advertising. that is remarkable. in a state that we know is always a battle ground. if we're looking for a surprise, pa. would probably be it. michigan is another state that comes close at the end. the auto bailout being a big factor in michigan. host: paul ryan just outside
7:25 pm
pennsylvania yesterday appeared in alabama in the middle. guest: philadelphia's suburbs continued to grow. pittsburgh, while it is more industrial is also getting to feel a little bit more like the east in terms of the suburban is now growing. alabama is shrinking. host: amy walter with the still the bottom of the hour. joining us on our twitter page where facebook as well. i want to go to the map. as you can see, you have ohio as leaning obama. light blue. you can see nevada, colorado, florida.
7:26 pm
still very much up in air as is on a web based on what polling numbers? >> look at the course of all of the polling numbers, as well as talking to folks on the ground, i think if you look at the map the best opportunities for mitt romney right now florida, virginia, colorado, new hampshire. that is based on the polling and discussions with both of the campaigns. i think the toughest ones and the best opportunities for the president, wisconsin, iowa, wisconsin, nevada. new hampshire is obviously incredibly competitive. i put that initially into mitt romney, but i do not know, i think it could go either way. >> florida, virginia and colorado to mitt romney.
7:27 pm
wisconsin and iowa and nevada to president obama is still comes down to ohio to determine the winner. >> based on that scenario, if you give all of those states to mitt romney, if the president wins wisconsin, new hampshire and ohio, you get to 269. i want a constitutional question the next day whether we should get rid of the electoral college. guest: we will definitely get .he question host caller: i have a major complaint. i watched the show every week, and there is a major problem going on with the company that bain capital and mitt romney
7:28 pm
own. they have laid off almost 200 employees. as we speak, jobs are being chipped -- shipped off to china for 99 cents an hour. the company earned $506 million recently of last year and has been doing very well and the employees are being paid $17 an hour. they will have no jobs coming soon, very shortly. after obama has fought for the people for the automotive industry, this should not be happening. i feel very bad for these employees that will not have jobs coming very soon. i hope people know this. host: thank you. but me take your point. let me read a portion of this.
7:29 pm
the relationship between china and united states has become more brittle. with the differences over change and strategic interests. and the american job market here all of this coming at the same time that we will see a change in chinese leadership as well. guest: this has been a key discussion in 2010, a major talking point for the congressional candidates. backing china has become something of a must do on the campaign trail.
7:30 pm
the support makes it very difficult to of a rational discussion about these issues off the campaign trail. to the caller's point, this has been the focus now for the democrats on mitt romney for some time. he is someone who made a lot of money but made it based on business practices that hurt regular people. and mitt romney will tell you and folks in bain capital will tell you, his job was not to go in and do those things, laying off people except iraq, his job was to go and make companies -- laying off people etcetera. his job was to go in and growth companies. mitt romney did not personally own these companies, it did not make the big decisions. but it comes to the central issue here on the economy. the real sense of anxiety. i appreciate where the caller is coming, too.
7:31 pm
about how money is made in the country. who are the winners and who are the losers. that is why in ohio, the debate about the auto bailout has been so important. that is why the president has been so successful there. these jobs of for part of the fabric of that place for so long, going away. and people feeling like they have nowhere else to turn. -- these are the jobs of the future. ago and this computer work. i am going to get retrained and do these jobs. and now these jobs are going overseas. americans are thinking i did all of the right things. i went to school, i got beat retraining and now they can ship these jobs -- i got the retraining and now they can ship these jobs overseas to.
7:32 pm
i think what the obama campaign has done is stoke that anxiety about the direction of our economy using mitt romney as the foil for all of that. host: what is the approach of a abc news when it comes to calling states and calling the election. guest: we will never go and call any state before the polls have closed in in that state. and when it comes to calling the ultimate winner of the presidential, that would never happen while the poles were still open in the states. host: 11 eastern is the earliest it could be called? guest: that is correct. host: let me go back to the political headline. this is a democratic leading survey from a politico pointing out the president 49%, the governor 48%.
7:33 pm
what happens if there's a recount in ohio? [video clip] the secretary of state will have a recount in ohio automatically if the vote totals within 0.5%. that will trigger automatically. both of these campaigns already have legal teams on the ground. they have confirmed that. there are already illegal to -- legal teams representing both candidates in ohio. i find it difficult to believe any network will call that way about ohio. in 2004, remember that night, john kerry held everything up until the following morning.
7:34 pm
the ohio held things up with 100,000 votes. both campaigns could be closer than that. there are things in place for automatic recount. host: that from the google hang out. both campaigns preparing for the 2000 scenario. guest: a lot of lessons were learned from that scenario. what you can see, what to do not concede. i did not think anyone would go about conceding on an election night if there was even the possibility of a recount. and i know that all of the lawyers are ready -- are getting themselves focused on this.
7:35 pm
we have seen this since 2000. both sides recruit attorneys, get the attorneys sent to all battleground states. they are sitting on the conference calls, have gone through every piece of campaign lot in that state, and made themselves aware of it. networks are very aware of that, too. we have our own book was about what the rules are in each and every state your automatic recount vs three counts of that a candidate can request who paid for it. and everything else. host: if you are listening on c- span radio, our guest is amy walter, abc news political director. on our line for republicans, kerry. caller: my comment is the last lady who called about setting the company around and losing jobs. she should stop and think, most businesses -- we are getting them here in florida from california. i want to take real good look.
7:36 pm
you talk about ohio. i do not hear anyone talking about the governor of ohio. the governor of florida, the governor of texas. these are republican governors. their economy is booming. simply because of taxes. am so sick of what is going on in this country. it is like a battle. we are all americans. i spent 27 years in the military. and i keep wondering, what did i give up 27 years of my life for. to come home and find out, people are giving my country away. host: thank you. comment, response? guest: he had an interesting point about the governor's. are they getting credit? there has been a lot of talk in ohio about the fact that -- in his case he is a republican
7:37 pm
governor, because of his success -- is it helping president obama? indeed, instead of becoming a great advocate for mitt romney, he has to sort of a tone down, there would like a town down to talk about how good the economy is doing. it doesn't make the case for mitt romney's call for change. host: we do not see them campaigning with mitt romney? guest: we do not now. the housing market is still in bad shape. not as bad as it used to be. but gov. scott is a very polarizing figure, much more unpopular than the two candidates running for president. even that who is more popular, it still polling a little under that. he got himself embroiled in a battle over labor and human
7:38 pm
negotiating, much like we saw in wisconsin. that, too, had carried some baggage. it polarizes the governors who have taken themselves out of the mix and in some ways both candidates are happy about that. host: another question -- please ask how credible the exit polling is an appalling state results. to is a great question. every year there is a debate about how useful these exit polls are. host: explain how they work. guest: all the networks get together to help pay for that and help run this. there's an outside group that goes and this involves a lot of mass. things i cannot possibly explain. it essentially involves years and years of data and work that goes into figuring out how to model out each and every one of these states based on
7:39 pm
information they are getting from both states that have been voted early. and taking that data and supplementing it as the votes, and with real actual data. here is the problem with exit polls, various people another work, but a lot of people like to talk about them -- very few people know how they work. but a lot of people like to talk about them. earlier, the first wave were set of data that came out would come out around 3:00 p.m. in the afternoon. the network said -- this is secret. do not but everyone knows. this never happens. everyone got on the farms and suddenly it was like wildfire. before the internet was all by
7:40 pm
phone. since the internet -- everywhere. not these folks are literally quarantining people that have the information. no phones, no access to the internet. no human contact. except for the people in the room. they are not allowed out until 5:00 p.m. then the word spreads. but two thanks, first, this information we are getting is very preliminary. the second is that there are many cases where there seems to be an early democratic bias. i am always very weary when that first set of data comes in. because you are picking up more democrats, as you get later in the hour, you are picking up more republicans. you cannot look at the very first set of data that comes out and say -- this is to the winner is going to be. it is not just to end up voting -- early on in the exit polls we saw that it was mitt romney
7:41 pm
who would benefit in the first wave. he was up 55, 6, 8 points. later in the evening, his lead would narrow, narrow, narrow. romney voters would go to the polls early. so, we would have to wait until you get the later data. and then the real votes, the most important. host: in the washington post -- observations about the final debate tomorrow and boca raton, florida. he points out that mitt romney is a great debater who prepares throughly. he will no doubt come to monday's debate with a better strategy for engaging obama on topics like libya and a foreign- policy. he needs to show that the criticism -- policies that are more affected than the president. guest: he does not get a lot of opportunities in this debate to
7:42 pm
actually talk about the rich man who would only benefit the wealthy. host: how long would it take for them to say the economy is a form of policy issue? guest: i think there will look for opportunities to do that. the other point he makes is an important one. when you go down and drill down, looking at the policies that both of these men are talking about, there's not a whole lot of light between them. a lot of it is, semantic, some of it is around the edges, in terms of real, serious foreign- policy differences from some of our most important areas of the world, the middle east, iran, there are not those big old differences. host: on our line for democrats, ohio. good morning.
7:43 pm
caller: good morning. i wanted to comment. i never voted in my life. for the first time i have voted for obama. a truly believe obama has done a good job. i just wanted to say that. i may puerto rican. i live in cleveland. i knew that obamacare is for people like us. i am one of the 47%, that mitt romney was talking about. host: how damaging was that video? guest: it was really problematic for mitt romney. but the image is already created of him before this. as i said was a lot of negative advertising about this guy who was a driven elitist.
7:44 pm
he did not understand middle- class values. the majority of people thought you would look out for the wealthy instead of the middle class. but to hear it in his own words is really the issue. that is when it becomes damaging. you can create a character of someone about it goes away when you meet that person. but when you hear the person in their own words, it makes a very tough for them to distance themselves from that. host: the passing of senator george mcgovern, he lost in a landslide to richard nixon and went on to serve in the senate until 1980. iran again in 1984. we featured -- he ran again in 1984. back in 2009 he sat down for an oral history to talk about how he defeated in the 1972 democratic primaries. [video clip]
7:45 pm
>> i out worked him for one thing. i was back and forth across this country without ceasing for almost two years. i announced in january of 1972, which at the time in american history, it had been the accepted time to announce. i knew coming from a local state like south dakota, three electoral votes, i had to out work in order to win at that election. i announced in early 1971. it was regarded as a kind of crazy thing to do. the press paid no attention to me for the first eight or nine months because always in the past candidates had announced in the election the year.
7:46 pm
but it enabled me to organize grass-roots organizations all across this country. just to do it very quietly, not much press attention. i remember working in the state of california long before any other presidential candidate had even visited california. i must have 1000 coffee parties in that many different living rooms across the great state of california. long before anybody else. people began to think i made sense. by the end of 1971, i have a much better organization across the country than any of the others. that is maybe a major way in which i won that nomination. host: he passed away this
7:47 pm
morning in his home of a south dakota. guest: still significant. you think about a role that he had played, engaging for that progressive wing of the party, the anti-war weighing. what is interesting about this election, i was thinking about this going forward, the debate over vietnam, which has been raging so hot, a prime issue in the 1992 campaign. really going through every year, but was always a alwaysmark about where they were -- that was always a question mark. i think we are now to the point where that legacy and the impact was on the candidates and the parti -- it has diminished so
7:48 pm
significantly in is now a debate over the middle east taking its place. host: the governor passed away at the age of the 90. we want to point out that he gave the clinton's their start in politics. we will go next to it,, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. the lady from california -- she was absolutely right. i watched the show. 170 families are looking for insurance, jobs. you of all of these people on c-span call-in, saying these lazy people who do not want to work. and this now has happened to over 5 million americans.
7:49 pm
50 to 60,000 factories have moved out of here. host: jim, on our line for republicans, south carolina . caller: i heard about you blaming mitt romney for exporting jobs. it was clinton who gave free trade status to china and other emerging markets. it was his job to make those companies compete with other companies within this new realm, paradigm of what companies were doing out of there. it is something you cannot blame him for purity was to given that new paradigm. the billions of dollars that went into bailing out gm -- please do not tell me that is going to reelect obama. that one issue, that one payback to one state. american airlines is facing a real difficulty. and they cannot get a raise. because for 12 years they have
7:50 pm
been voting democrat, there will not let you drill for oil. now oil is not 12 times more experience. that is why they cannot get a raise. host: thank you. amy walter? guest: these callers altogether really represent the difficulty in this election for both candidates. which is, as i said earlier, the real economic reality out there that, whether it is trade with china or jobs in india, we are in a globalized environment now. there's not an easy answer for this. there are going to be people who lose their jobs, people who
7:51 pm
succeed years that are going to succeed better than the other 97% of folks. a lot of it does not look fair. a lot of it is hard to explain and put into a political context. both of these candidates are living in that world. which is why we have seen a lot more finger-pointing and blaming than we have seen. maybe we should have the policies for where the government should try to make sense of this. a lot of this is -- the other reality is, there's an awful lot the government can do. we have spent a lot of time talking about the role of the president and fixing the economy, putting things back on track. so much of it had little to do with what they are doing or what folks on capitol hill are doing. what is happening out there in the private sector, and the reaction to what is happening around the world. there will be demagoguing on this. this will be the great dilemma. for whoever wins. the will have to come back bashing china after demagoguing
7:52 pm
issues like medicare and social security and the deficit. they are going to have to come back and maybe immediately, not right after the election, deal with all of those. after they just destroyed their opponent based on those issues. host: candidate, regardless of who is in the white house, by all accounts -- even if one party has a majority it would be a narrower majority, what happens? what will we be talking about? what will congress off need to do to deal with the press will clip? guest: a data that they have to deal with it. there's an understanding by the leadership on capitol hill that this is not one of those situations that you can't ignore and hope it goes away. they have to handle it. there's talk behind-the-scenes about how this would work. a very different scenario based
7:53 pm
on who wins and how that person wins. if mitt romney wins the thinking is they do not have to deal with this in a lame-duck situation. they can wait, come back after he is sworn in. president obama wins, probably have to deal with it more quickly. and the president would argue that -- you have four more years with me. we have to deal with this now. might as well do it now. look, at the end of the day, both sides understand that this cannot be ignored. big, big, big cuts. very popular programs will be instigated. tax hikes on regular people are going to happen. this is not a question about, we will ignore it for a couple of years. host: headlines "washington post -- closing in on the finish line. as focusing on the undecided. percentage wise? guest: if you because you say maybe it is 3% to 5%. and then you throw in people who
7:54 pm
are persuade the ball. people not totally committed to one candidate or the other. maybe that pushes up to 9%, a 10%. either way, it is a very, very small number. thank host: . exit polls will be meaningless because of early voting in swing states like ohio. guest: exit polls taken into account. in states like colorado or nevada or 67% of the vote comes an early, that is factored in in the exit polls. it is not just people standing outside polling places. host: on our line for democrats. caller: hi, amy. you are very personal. and what i wanted to say is that -- host: go ahead. caller: you are very
7:55 pm
informative for all of the issues. but the thing about it is that, i am in california. and everybody writes california off. and we have like the majority of the votes. and nobody ever speaks on that issue. host: thank you. guest: you have a lot of people who feel like they do not have much say. in the discussion when it comes
7:56 pm
to the electoral college. i can understand the frustration. sorry state like new hampshire with four electoral votes is getting more attention and much more of the candidate's time and energy than the state of california. which is why we hear time and time again about the electoral college and why it does not work. we know that demographics of a big impact on which electoral votes matter in which years. it was not that long ago that california was in the mix as a state of folks competed for. texas, everybody assumes because of the demographic changes that state is positioned as just a pure red state, that it will be much more competitive, because of the fact that there is a minority there. we expect to see a place like texas, back into the mix in terms of electoral influence. host: i like the way virginia has become a purple state.
7:57 pm
guest: at the end of the day, it is hard to see that california will be competitive if. is competitive in redistricting. it is turned many seats that were once considered -- into competitive districts. to clear up late wondering which house seat when which way it will be because of california. host: let us look at the numbers. and herbert hoover's election, the american people voted out of office after a single term, only three elected president and the carter, george h. w. bush -- all of them were successful businessman before there were president. guest: again, it goes to the point i made earlier about, so much of what is happening on the stock market, what is happening in the business, in the private sector has very little to do
7:58 pm
with government. i think they understand that as well. lot of what is going on out there is happening regardless of who is in the white house. at the same time, but you are expecting is for the president to give a vision about what the what the economy to look like. with the one in terms of the role of the global economy. we have had that to date. many different views of the role of government. and the role that government should play in either regulating, restricting, however you want to say it, business and regulation. but at the end of the day, these two candidates -- one of them is a point the president and they will be reduced by economic winds out of their control. host: there is always won a
7:59 pm
race, house senate race that pops up surprising a lot of pundits. which one are you keeping an eye on? guest: certainly pennsylvania, as you pointed out. republicans did not really do much to recruit a strong candidate in that race. that race has tightened up. i would not be surprised to see a surprise there. the other one is in arizona. the state that we also think should be a competitive states because of the changing demographics. is not competitive in the presidential level, but there is a competitive senate race right now. that would be a very big surprise if you saw a democrat win that the senate state. host: amy walter, abc news political director. thank you for being with us. by the way we are covering many of these races that amy walter just talked about. and many of the debates available on a website. available on a website.

107 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on